HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 04-16-24
2
Plan Commission Minutes 4-16-24
Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns
1. Outcome of Projects at Committees
a. Residential Committee: No April Meeting
b. Commercial Committee: No April Meeting
Public Hearings:
Zoccola: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing in front of the Plan Commission.
1. Docket No. PZ-2024-00034 OA: PRIF Credit Process UDO Amendment.
The applicant seeks to amend the UDO pursuant to Carmel City Council Resolution CC-01-08-24-01, which
directs the Plan Commission to consider amendments to UDO Sections 1.30(F), (K) and (L) regarding the
procedures for granting park and recreation impact fee credits. Filed by the Department of Community Services
on behalf of the Carmel City Council.
Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Planning Administrator DOCS
• Keeling gave an opening statement providing a timeline of the current ordinance amendment process. She went
on to provide a summary of the proposed changes. Essentially the ordinance amendment seeks to reorganize the
method in which impact fees credits and granted and restructures what individuals and organizational bodies are
included in the process.
• Plan Commissioner and City Councilor, Shannon Minnaar, provided a summary of the amendment from the
perspective of the City Council where the amendment originated. She stated that the main changes in the
amendment were as follows:
o F.1-b. consent on cost overruns/changes on the deviation limit, which would require the project to come
back to the full Council if said limit was exceeded.
o F. 3-b. Removes the power of the Board of Public Works to override deviation expenses.
o F. 6. Provides City Council the authority to audit Carmel Redevelopment Authority regarding any
projects involving them, the Parks Department, and PRIF.
o K. Consolidation of the non-reverting fund from two funds into a single fund to fulfill the concept of “one
city one fund” instead of two separate urban and parks funds.
Minnaar overall believed that the amendment was a proper compromise between Parks and the
Redevelopment Commission and that a positive recommendation was in order.
Public Comments:
Matt Snyder, Carmel City Council
• Snyder praised the amendment as a step towards more transparency and accountability regarding where impact
fee money is going and helps recommit to the original idea of why impact fees were put into place. He believed
that this amendment does not take away directly from either the Redevelopment Commission or the Parks
Department, instead it would foster more collaboration between the entities to make sure PRIF money is spent in
a way that benefits the community as a whole.
• Minnaar prompted Snyder with the question of why transparency regarding this matter was so important. Snyder
noted that transparency is crucial for all government matters. Particularly in this case it is helpful because in the
past money intended for parks had been used for things that many would not consider parks, such as sidewalks.
Over time a very loose determination of what was “public space” was being applied. A problem with having an
urban parks fund was there is no definition of what an urban park is. By combining that fund with the other park
fund into one it will help ensure money is spent on assets the community collectively agrees is a park amenity.
Petitioner Rebuttal: None
Department Report: None (Covered in opening statement.)
3
Plan Commission Minutes 4-16-24
Committee Comments:
Zoccola: I have a technical question. On F.b. I just want to make sure I understand the process. With respect to
components of infrastructure or other improvements not included in the Zone Improvement Plan, the process will be a
consultation with the Director of Carmel-Clay Parks and Recreation, then goes to City Council for their approval where if
desired they can set a deviation limit for how much credit is allocated, and then it goes to the Board of Public Works and
the Board of Public Works has the final consent and say?
Snyder: The Board of Public Works has the ability to increase or decrease the funds based off of that deviation. The first
question that should be asked by the Council when a project comes to us is if it’s brought to us by the Parks Department,
what does the Redevelopment Commission have to say and vice versa. The point of this is to get those two entities to
collaborate. That is where [Council] the expenditure is approved. Beyond that then the Board of Public Works
administers...should at that time the applicant also requests a deviation percentage. Historically it’s been 10% well on a
three million dollar project that is a really large deviation so maybe its not 10% its 3% and that sets the guideline for what
the Board of Public Works can allow for overages of that project. That deviation percentage is kind of a backstop. Should
it run into an issue where it goes over that deviation percentage then it would be kicked back from Boad of Public Works
to Council.
Clarification provided by legal counsel to Commissioner Zoccola on the current wording of the amendment regarding
final approval authority.
Hill: If you have a high dollar - three million dollar - project a developer wants to bring in lieu of impact fees there are
parameters set as a backstop of 10% , doesn’t have to be that number but, if something goes beyond that any cost above
that is on the petitioner or developer is that fair to say or are there other backstops just from a procedural stand point?
Snyder: It is my interpretation of the language that it would then come back to Council whether we would want to
increase the allocation or not. If we did not increase it, then by default it comes back to the developer. Am I saying that
correctly counselor?
Hill: Are there mechanisms to ensure completion of the agreed upon project whether its bonding, or other mechanisms,
just to make sure we aren’t left with a mostly complete project?
Grechukhin: Usually project agreements will have those terms incorporated into them to protect the city. So yes, this
language doesn’t belong in this ordinance, but it is there.
Buckler: So coming back up to ten thousand feet, I see this as a great proposal that removes the perception of competition
between departments and divisions within the City of Carmel’s executive branch which is a good thing because I think the
perceptions were misperceptions. Regardless it is a much cleaner clearly defined process so with that comment I move its
adoption.
Kirsh: As your Parks Board appointment to the Planning Commission, I thought you might be interested in what Parks
has to say. A lot of feelings were hurt along the way to get here. As my father who is a pretty wise guy would say, a good
compromise is when neither party is particularly overpleased. There are probably members of the Parks Board that wished
this went a step further. I know that the Director of Carmel Parks has been on the record with he is pleased with this. I
don’t want to misquote him, but I think he is pleased with what has been presented. I think that the current Council has
gone very far in the adoption of this and in the presentation of this. They have clearly put a lot of thought into it. I think
that it is a heck of an olive branch between Council and Carmel Parks. No one is particularly unhappy with what the end
results are. As Councilman Snyder pointed out, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may be a duck, but I think
it’s important to have the Parks Director weigh in on what that park is going to be. So, I think it’s a positive step. Is it
100% of what Parks wants? No, but I think it’s the right direction to go.
A motion to provide a favorable recommendation to City Council made by Buckler and seconded by Hill.
APPROVED 6-0 absent Campagna, Grabow, & Westermeier